This fall’s upcoming battle for the two at-large Aldermen/City Council seats from Ward 2, is more than a contest for two board seats. Instead, it’s shaping up to be a battle between the smart-growth and no-growth factions that has come to divide Newton politically.
On one side, we have incumbents Susan Albright and Marcia Johnson, both of whom have been supportive of the Austin Street project and have drawn heat from opponents who’ve criticized them for ignoring concerns about traffic, school crowding and parking.
On the other, are the three challengers – Jake Auchincloss, Lynne LeBlanc and Jess Barton – all of whom have said they oppose the Austin Street proposal.
Auchincloss and LeBlanc were even endorsed by Kathleen Kouril Grieser, the most visible and outspoken leader of the anti-development movement in Newton and active with the secretive no-growth group Newton Villages Alliance.
But I’ve been wondering if Auchincloss (who uses a photo of himself in front of two MBTA cars on his campaign website but also this “danger” construction photo on his campaign site) is really as anti-development as Grieser, the NVA and other no-growth advocates hope he is or as Johnson and Alright supporters and smart-growth advocates fear.
Auchincloss told me today that he opposes Austin Street because he doesn’t like the terms of the agreement, not because he thinks the Austin Street parking lot should remain a parking lot. “I don’t have traffic concerns. I don’t have school crowding concerns. Those are straw man (arguments)” he said.
Auchincloss went on talk about how he’s suggested to the Warren Administration a way to restructure the Austin Street deal and how he thinks his suggestion was taken seriously.
And he talked a lot about taking a “nuanced view” of development and the need for more vibrancy to our village centers, which are not words we hear much from the folks who celebrated his decision to challenge Johnson and Albright.
Which leads me to wonder, is Jake Auchincloss being wrongly pigeonholed by both supporters and his opponents?
It’s totally unfair and inaccurate to paint people with a broad no-growth brush.
The reality is that many residents are totally in favor of growth in the form of variety and vibrancy of retail without the crushing costs and school overcrowding associated with large additional residential projects.
The other reality is that many residents are totally in favor of growth in the form of variety of distance from their houses.
@Charie: Never mind. My point won’t further the conversation.
To be clear, traffic and school congestion are important questions for every Newton project; the issue for Austin Street, though, is a more fundamental question of whether public land should be developed equivalently to private land.
@Jake: Will you share with us your proposal for restructuring the Austin Street deal? Or point me to a link if you’ve done so already? Thank you.
Actually, as to what is the definition of “smart growth” frames the debate, and it’s over selling those with the tag; just as you over dramatizing those tagged as “no growth.” The reality is much more complicated and involves communications within the neighborhoods, hearing what people have to say, and providing leadership and direction. The experience I have gained in my 1st term, serving on Land Use, has shown me that projects coming in with a consensus and reflect community building move through the process. On new development proposals we now ask “what do the neighbors think,” setting the tone for a smooth process.
Hmmm What is a voter to do? I like both Jake & Lynne as two new fresh faces with new insight and ideas but I’m also pro density, smart growth and support vibrant village centers particularly around MBTA stops. So do we supposed to take this election as a referendum on Austin Street with a simple yes or no vote on these new candidates v incumbents or look deeper and broader than that on these candidates?
I’m voting for Gloria.
@Gail- Please explain your post? You quoted mine, but I’d appreciate a more clear connection. Thanks.
I agree with Charlie. While there are some that want no change ever, and others who want extreme change, there are a wide variety of views in between. I personally favor some level of increased density in the village centers but believe the devil is in the details in terms of how it’s done. We also have to approach it honestly – for example acknowledging that more people will mean more cars. I think it’s a stretch to assume that most people who move to Newton, even next to a T or bus or commuter rail stop, will not have a car. Hopefully some day our public transit options will improve such that people will feel they can live here without a car but for MOST people we are not there yet.
We also have to do a better job of listening to residents and taking their concerns into account. The Austin St process is a poster child for how NOT to approach change in our village centers (or anywhere). I have spoken with Jake and my takeaway is that he gets that this job is about representing people.
I highly recommend this NRDC article – it offers some nuance on the topic of smart growth.
“But perhaps no impact of poorly planned neighborhood density is more visible than the loss of green space.”
“I believe we will never succeed in accomplishing the many environmental and community goals of smart growth without earning the broad support of the public, both on a national level and within individual communities.”
“We accept incremental change much more easily than drastic change.”
I would also like to remind people it’s not just about the “big projects” but those closer to home.
An entire neighborhood in Newton Ctr rose up less than two years ago sick to death of living in a construction zone.
They fell short of of one vote to get get rezoned.
I certainly hope this election we get “smart” enough councilors to listen and not preach.
One could say the “devils is in the details” or through another lens, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. At what point are we sending the message that Newton is closed for business? We may be dangerously close to that point right now, leaving us even more dependent on residential property taxes to fund local services.
When Jake first asked to sit down and talk about Newton with me, several months before he announced he was running, we talked about smart growth and the changing local and regional demographic that favor greater density in village centers and more multi-family projects. At the very end of our conversation, he mentioned that he was thinking of running for alderman-at-large in Ward 2. I told him then, and I continue to believe, that there is very little daylight between him and the incumbents. His position on Austin Street has evolved and become more nuanced, focusing on the differences between public vs. private development, but after reviewing the body of his written work I have not changed my mind. I think KKG et al. will be sorely disappointed if he votes the way he writes.
Sorry for the double post, but I had not taken the time to review all the other comments before commenting myself.
Emily and Jim, neither of you seems to understand what our role is in the special permit process. Petitioners are seeking the Board of Aldermen’s permission, not the neighbors’. Yes, we should take into account everything residents tell us about each project. But when we are acting as a special permit granting authority, we are not representing them, we are acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, just like a judge, who must be impartial, unbiased, objective, and find facts and apply the law without letting politics cloud our judgments. The question is whether a particular project will satisfy the special permit criteria, not whether it would win a popularity contest. Whether the BOA–which is political by nature–should be the special permit granting authority in Newton is, perhaps, something for the Charter Commission to consider.
Jane, I agree that Newton has a well deserved reputation as “closed for business.” But that does not mean that we should just bend over backwards for every commercial or mixed use project that comes to us for our approval. I was disappointed in the Land Use Committee and the Planning Department for dropping the ball on Wells Avenue and not even reviewing the traffic study submitted by the developer of an office building that will only add to the traffic and congestion on Nahanton Street during rush hours, which will be further compounded by the completion of the “Add-A-Lane” project at Kendrick Street in Needham. Thankfully, when the BOA sent the project back to committee, the developer graciously agreed to pay its share for traffic improvements and agree not to develop a potential right of way for a second egress to Nahanton Street across its property, which could relieve much of the existing and future congestion. And the Planning Department and Land Use Committee wisely asked for a peer review of the traffic study submitted for an upcoming Wells Avenue project that will add a similar amount of parking and vehicle trips.
While it is true that we need and want more commercial development to generate added property tax revenues, there are costs. Commercial development, particularly office buildings, add far more traffic per square foot than residential projects. Rubber stamping commercial developments without seeking mitigation for those traffic impacts only increase our carbon footprint and diminish the quality of life for residents who live in and around those developments. Adding parking and vehicle trips from large developments without understanding and mitigating the impacts is a recipe for disaster. If the BOA fails to fairly and consistently scrutinize these projects, we will end up with gridlock and greenhouse gas emissions multiplied many times, which I assume no one wants.
I am hoping for candidate(s) who will proactively seek to preserve the single family housing stock, not just react to proposed developments. I am not an expert on ANY form of real estate or real estate laws but I’d like to know if/how the city can:
1. attract the KIND of developers who could profit from existing houses rather than tear downs.
An example in Needham https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2014/01/12/saving-needham-history-one-little-pink-house-time/9LFiozCx7DP04inSEOYYvN/story.html
2. provide some form of tax relief to sellers who sell to first time buyers and/or buyers who would commit to NOT tearing down or blowing out their new homes for X years.
3. support neighbourhood re-zoning laws for X years. If you can put a hold on a specific house, why NOT an entire block or neighbourhood IF you have overwhelming majority of homeowners in favour of it with the understanding that zoning will have to be re-examined and re-granted every few years to reflect the majority will of the block or neighbourhood.
Again, this is NOT my area of expertise by any means but I would love to have conversations about what is proactively possible to preserve our single family footprints.
Also one of the more amusing reads on 40B I’ve ever read from the good people of Gloucester. http://gloucesterclam.com/2015/08/02/no-snark-sunday-affordable-housing-downtown-by-josh-turiel-because-we-cant-even/
I am completely opposed to the BOA “rubber stamping” any project. Each development should be evaluated on its merits with improvements that result from a careful study and pubic input put into place. But when every mixed use development hits a brick wall, then that’s a problem.
Residential development (tear downs of moderately priced homes that are replaced with $2m houses) cost the city in other ways. What percentage of those new homes have now, or will have in the future, students in the NPS? What percentage of the moderately priced homes that are torn down are owned by empty nesters?
Joyce, I hope you realie that Needham is also promoting the creation of 40B projects that will add something 400 residential units and bring the town way up over its 10%.
And we do have a first-time homebuyer program that requires a permanent affordability easement.
Saving “moderately priced” homes sounds like motherhood and apple pie until you look at the numbers. When the median priced single family home in Newton is over $800,000, households with “moderate” incomes are already priced out of the market. Preserving these houses instead of creating affordable alternatives only exacerbates the problem. It is a false dichotomy in the Newton housing market. McMansions proliferate in part because no developer wants to go through the special permit process to get approval for multifamily projects that might actually provide those affordable alternatives in mixed income developments. Demolition moratoriums cannot go on forever without violating constitutionally protected property rights, and no one is offering viable alternatives that will actually result in some truly “moderately” priced housing.
The problem with restricting “someone else’s” property rights is sooner or later, that someone else will be you. Putting more onerous regulations on individual property owners, particularly seniors who have paid their mortgages and taxes dutifully for many years and depriving them of their hard earned return on investment is not the solution.
Do we have town homes in Newton? I don’t seem to remember that there are any. It seems that might be a way we can go to keep property values lower.
Joyce most of what the land Use committee does is approve requests from homeowners who want to go above the prescribed floor area ratios. They want to add a bedroom, enlarge a kitchen, change a deck into an enclosed den etc. In fact all those requests and subsequent approvals help to do exactly what you are asking – allowing people to stay in their single family homes and not risk putting them up for sale so they can move into a bigger house.
And – now – everyone should go outside. It’s a weekend in August and our precious summer is coming to an end. Go enjoy it.
Susan, thank you. Ted, thank you as well. Yes I am aware of that development and good for them for getting ahead of the 40B ball. I am actually not anti-development but it seems there should be a way to discuss the single family stock without being painted as anti-development or anti-property rights. And I am not proposing to restrict “someone else’s” property rights, I am proposing that if an entire block of homeowners agree to restrict their very own property rights via a change in zoning laws for X years, then they should be allowed to do so. Is it technically legal? No idea.
A bunch of important points have been raised throughout this thread. To begin, I completely agree with Charlie and others who point out that it’s both unfair and unwise to polarize the positions of myself and the other Ward Two newcomers regarding growth and development. Although I can’t speak for the others, I do not believe that opposing the current Austin Street proposal on the table inherently makes any candidate “anti-growth.” Rather, as pointed out by Alderman Norton and others, the primary role of an individual alderman is to represent the community. As a candidate who is on par to knock on 10,000 doors before the preliminary, the voice of residents in Ward Two specifically and Newton in general has been clear – oppose the current Austin Street project on the table. As a candidate who is deeply committed to transparency and honest communication, it is my hope that voters most certainly take a close look at all candidates’ backgrounds, positions and reasons for running.
This thread should make us consider seriously if land use and development should be the role of the BOA. It’s obvious when you attend public meetings and listen to the debate it is clear that politics have to much influence in the final decisions.
For months [seems like years] I’ve been saying Austin Street is a bad deal for the city. This Mayor [like our last] struggles when it comes to business dealings. As a real estate developer, my back-of-the-napkin calculation indicated Newton should receive approximately $5M for the proposed project at Austin Street. But it completely makes sense to sell [lease] the property for less, because the Mayor’s primary agenda was to create affordable housing.
The problem came about when Mayor Warren failed to negotiate enough affordable units, putting the city in a position where our objective was not being met AND the property was being undersold.
Frankly, I’ve lost track of where this projects is in the approval process. But the way to save it is to insist that the developer provide six more affordable units, either through a rededication of market rate units, adding six units to the structure, or a combination of those two approaches.
I don’t know how Jake Auchincloss feels about my suggestion. But I do know that he’s exactly correct in citing the terms of the deal as the reason he opposes the Austin Street project.
In response to Joyce’s comments about preserving the existing single family housing stock:
There is an intriguing proposal being discussed at the state level to allow cities to preserve housing. A city would give property tax relief to homeowners. The city would then apply that property tax relief as a lien against the home and be given a right of first refusal when the home sells. This serves the dual purpose of allowing people as they get older to afford to stay in their homes while also allowing cities to preserve their existing housing stock and reduce teardowns.
This particular proposal is still in its infancy and undoubtedly has kinks to be worked out, but I think it exemplifies the kind of creative thinking we need to be doing in the area of housing.
@Bryan – I’d be interested in hearing more. Is there any draft documentation?
From the Newton zoning code:
The board of aldermen may grant a special permit when, in its judgment, the public convenience and welfare will be served, and subject to such conditions, safeguards and limitations as it may impose. The board of aldermen shall not approve any application for a special permit unless it finds, in its judgment, that the use of the site will be in harmony with the conditions, safeguards and limitations herein set forth, and that the application meets all the following criteria…:
(1) The specific site is an appropriate location for such use, structure;
(2) The use as developed and operated will not adversely affect the neighborhood;
(3) There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians;
(4) Access to the site over street s is appropriate for the type(s) and number(s) of vehicles involved
I think it is clear from the above that impact on the community, as expressed by the community members themselves, is an appropriate and permissible criterion for aldermen/women to consider when judging special permits.
And of course what was the purpose of all those community meetings, if not to actually listen to what the community wants?
To imply that aldermen/women should be deciding special permits without any consideration for what the community actually wants is, I think, an inaccurate interpretation of our Zoning Ordinance.
Not yet, like I said, still in its infancy.
There should be a report out sometime in September, I’ll keep you posted Chris.
I doubt this or any other one thing would be a silver bullet, but could be a good tool to have in our toolbox.
Candidates: Do you agree with Jess Barton’s belief (from door knocking) that Newton in general (beyond Ward 2) is against the Austin street project? It doesn’t seem the case to this casual observer.
The great economist John Maynard Keynes wrote:
“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”
TH-M’s call for unbiased judgment, that judgments should be made in the interest of the special permit itself, is illogical, at odds with the guidance offered in the Zoning Code, and contradictory to the best interests of the people of Newton. Indeed, the idea that narrow legal protocols should preempt discussion of the common good for the people and businesses of Newton and Newtonville is obscene. Issues as to whether we want Newton to become more urban, what kind of precedent the ASP might set for similar future developments, whether the development is wanted by and would be good for local businesses and residents are all essential to having a democratic process. So is knowing where the various Alders stand in supporting the project or not. It is imperative that citizens have that knowledge to make informed voting decisions this November.
To stifle these sorts of debates with a “gag order” for the sake of excessive legalism, would betray the interests of our village, which is overwhelmingly opposed to this project.
Peter: I’ve heard many erroneous statements about Austin Street, but the suggestion that anyone is suggesting that debate be “stifled” or that debate has been stifled is certainly the most ridiculous.
Hess-Mahan’s words speak for themselves. Yours are “proof by assertion.”
@Greg: From your perspective, what are the top five “erroneous statements about Austin Street” that you have heard?
@Jess: Not sure I can give you a top-5 list, but certainly complaints that there hasn’t been enough opportunity for the public to weigh in — or this latest suggestion that anyone is imposing a gag order on aldermen — takes the cake.
Also, anyone who continues to fret about the loss of parking spaces, hasn’t been paying attention to the fact the proposal was changed to maintain 100 percent of the spaces.
Finally, I’d say that anyone who believes this project will destroy Newtonville as well as those who feel it will be its salvation, are both mistaken.
This is the Newton Website page on Special Permits
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/current/sppermits/default.asp
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/22756
Excerpt
“The Board of Aldermen, while a legislative body with members elected from the eight wards of the City, acts in a quasi-judicial manner when deciding special permit/site plan approval petitions.”
“Communications before land use petitions are filed.
While providing information to potential petitioners or to constituents is an important public service, it is also important for aldermen to avoid prejudging a potential petition prior to the public hearing and conclusion of the Board’s review of the petition.”
“Communications after land use petitions are filed.
Aldermen contacted subsequent to the filing of a land use petition should encourage the persons contacting them to communicate their information to the Board at the time of the public hearing and/or by filing written comments with the Clerk of the Board.
Persons interested in a land use petition should understand that in order to provide everyone an impartial decision, aldermen should not commit themselves to vote one way or another on any land use petition until all interested parties have had an opportunity to present information about the petition to the Board of Aldermen.”
Bryan,
That was an extremely intriguing proposal, can you keep us all up to date. Thanks.
Currently the Austin Street lot has 159 spaces. The Austin Street Project would provide 127. So it’s a net reduction. Some people are not bothered by that, but let’s at least operate from the same facts. Then take into account the additional demand the developer will be creating with a restaurant, a spin studio and an “innovation center.” Hence ASP’s request for a waiver for 80 parking spaces.
People drive to do errands, then need a place to store the car. Perhaps even Greg drives and parks occasionally. That is why the Newtonville businesses have spoken out against this project time after time. They know that they will likely go under if people decide it is no longer convenient to come to Newtonville. And that does not even take into account the lack of a plan for interim parking while the Austin Street’s 1877 vintage water main and sewers are replaced (2-6 months), and while the project is under construction (13 months). During this period the Austin Street lot will be unavailable, and according to Newtonville Area Council member Tom Kraus’ testimony at a recent Land Use Committee hearing, adequate substitute parking has not been found.
Evening parking in the ASL has doubled in the last year, day-time parking is way up, and the lot was overcapacity almost every Saturday at busy times from January till mid-April. Our already revitalized village needs its parking. Let’s not destroy the village in order to save it.
As for gag orders, on reconsideration, I think the law allows for adequate debate, and is broader and more democratic than Ted H-M’s interpretation of it.
Bryan Barash, thank you sir! I understand there is no documentation yet but do you know if there is precedent elsewhere in the US? I think you’ve hit it on the head, options for the toolbox. And out of curiousity, is this idea something that necessarily NEEDS legislation or would cities/towns be able to run with this if their laws, citizens and budgets allowed? I don’t imagine we would do it, though the idea of owning right of first refusal for houses abutting certain schools has merit.
@Bryan – One of the reasons the idea caught my eye is that its similar to Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) tools that have worked in the past to preserve farmland and as one of the tools that helped preserve historic landmarks and neighborhoods like New York City’s Theatre District.
Of course, as the name implies, the tool as used above is intended to transfer density from a “sending” area to a “receiving” one so that the overall planned density stays the same, as do overall property values. Nonetheless, very interesting and might be applied in a creative way to this problem.
A few thoughts on the discussion:
Newton has 12 various zoning districts (3 single residence, 4 multi-residence, 2 multi-use, and 3 business) all with “as of right” housing opportunities (that is no need for Land Use or Zoning changes). We should take advantage of these “as of right” opportunities to build additional housing as needed. One thing to remember: Our housing stock and population growth have remained fairly consistent – that is about 5,000 additional units to about 5,000 additional residents over the past few decades. That tells me we are not in the dire shortage some who would like us to believe.
Newton is a desirable city but as I have said before in these pages, people move here because of what it is now, not because of anticipated density. And it seems millennials who had lived in cities prefer the suburban experience once they decide to have children (http://www.wsj.com/articles/millennials-prefer-single-family-homes-in-the-suburbs-1421896797). Newton is desirable because it is a suburb and because of its proximity to Boston.
The value of zoning is reciprocal: those who buy into neighborhoods have a reasonable expectation that their neighborhood will not change dramatically while allowing property owners to sell within the same confines of the neighborhood they initially bought into. Special permits muddle neighborhood expectations and are one way of reshaping Newton without consent of neighbors. And that gets to a central point of discontent in our garden city. Neighbors in all corners of Newton are surprised and in many cases unhappy with developments that are built in ways and density they had not expected. Yet, few in our city who approve zoning or land use variances are discussing their vision for a new Newton (do they have one?). In this way the city is not allowing neighbors to anticipate what variances mean for now and into the future. Leadership must be forthright in their plans for Newton so residents can reject or approve changes that are happening under the guise of helping our housing problem.
@Howard-
I’d be very concerned about assigning land use and development powers to an unelected board with no direct accountability to voters, but I’d be open to hearing how that might work.
It important to avoid generalizations. We moved here because it was a city and not a suburb so it had a more diverse population, and for the location. When I hear someone state that that “everyone” is for or against an issue, or states the reason why thousands of people moved here, it leads me to question the source. One of the things I love about Newton is the diversity of thought and opinion on just about every issue. There’s aren’t two sides to an issue here – there’s more like 20 -25 sides.
Charlie,
(I know I’m not Howard, but…)
The board or commission would be appointed by the Board of Councilors. They would be selected based on their experience with special permits, which is more than many people on the council have, and other related issues. They would meet once or twice per month and are citizens of the city. My understanding is that they would answer to the Council.
It’s hard to believe we are continuing to discuss Austin Street and seeing the same arguments dragged out again.
Peter and others, you are either trying to deliberately deceive those who are new to the dicussion of Austin Street or you are falling for your own propaganda.
1. There are presently 121 parking spaces are available to the general public, so 127 is a net gain. It doesn’t matter how long (years?) you say it or that it’s on the NVA website, it’s still not true that the public has use of 159 parking spaces.
2. Who are the owners of Newtonville businesses that are still speaking out against the project now that the parking has been restored? Many businesses have there own parking either on Bram Way or behind them on the other side of Walnut and many are very much in favor of having new walk in traffic. Interim parking will be worked out during the working sessions.
3. “Our village needs it’s parking” and it’s keeping it.
4. “As for gag orders …” This conspiracy theory, along with its alder bashing, is a new one for me. You and others may not like the special permit process but it’s not new, not a conspiracy and it’s the only way a project can be approved/disapproved impartially. It keeps creeps from trying to sway a vote just because they want it their way.
Lynne, again you say “people move here for what it us now and not because of anticipated destiny.” Again, just because you repeat it ad infinitum, doesn’t and never will make it true.
People move to Newton for individual reasons, too many to count.
At this point in time, many people, if they are among those few who can afford it, are moving to Newton for the age old reason of Location, Location, Location. Newton is between the 128 Corridor and Boston. It is close to colleges, medical facilities and STEM employment. Culture and entertainment surround it. A lot don’t live in big homes with grand grounds, would welcome better transit and density, would like for their friends and family to be able to afford to live here and don’t really care about “what it is now” except that right now, it is home.
Some are moving into family homes to care for elderly parents, of which there are many, and hope to stay.
Some are moving close to relatives or downsizing; it’s a great place to retire, except for the winter.
Some are drawn to its progressive roots, some to its history, some to the city with 13 villages.
Some to raise their children where things are bikable and walkable, but still drivable. Some like the expensive restaurants and high brow stores and some like the little local shops and places to eat. Isn’t it nice that Newton has both.
The list is endless so please stop speaking for the residents of Newton as if we are one, big homogeneous group who want to stop time. And if that is what you want, then find the Tardis because it’s moving on anyway.
Joyce, “I am not proposing to restrict “someone else’s” property rights.” Yes, yes you are proposing just that. I can’t imagine fair housing laws ever letting this happen, but if “a majority” of the residents were able to zone a neighborhood,(Call Dumbo, I’m seeing dancing pink elephants) then the minority would have their property rights restricted by the majority. I don’t ever plan to let you or anyone in my neighborhood decide who I can sell my house to. I think that’s been tried before.
Just for jollies, let’s say a majority of residents decided to “zone” their neighborhood so that houses could only, say, be sold to aging hippies. And the zoning included those hippies being able to sunbathe naked while playing Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd songs and using leafblowers. Would you want to be in that minority?
Does anyone know the count of empty store fronts in Newtonville, Newton Centre or Newton Highlands and how this compares to years back? Newton Centre has an empty store front on every block (former Staples, Scott Trade, Party Store, wine/brew shop…). I noticed Bread and Chocolate and Newtonville Pets were still unoccupied in Newtonville.
Basically, how are our villages doing?
@Lucia–Village Bank took over the Newtonville Pets location. Bread and Chocolate are still in their old location, last I heard they are planning on re-opening with just prepared foods.
There’s an area in Newton zoned for Grateful Dead????
Where??? I want to move there.
Charlie, I think consideration of an elected or appointed commission to approve land use and special permits is worth exploring. Currently my observations are that decisions are arbitrary and not based on a comprehensive zoning and development plan that has been developed by an open community process. The past year or so the planning department held extensive public meetings to get input from the community these meetings were poorly attended which results in a Comprehensive Plan that the public knows nothing about and has very little interest. I believe that occurs because there is no accountability for the city to comply with the plan. Whether it’s the BOA or some other commission development and land use to be successful must follow a plan that meets the current and future needs of the city..
@ Tom – Sure, happy to keep everyone updated on the status.
@ Joyce – While I’m not sure it would “need” legislation, my experience is that cities are often hesitant to adopt new tools in this area on their own before they’re sanctioned statewide. That being said, some cities have experimented with zoning or other housing reforms that haven’t yet been specifically sanctioned by the state.
@ Chris – You’re exactly right, it’s modeled off of existing programs that allow municipalities to provide tax relief and purchase properties for purposes such as preservation of farmland. That’s where the idea originated. The fact that it is already a commonly used and proven tool in other areas is a reason I think it is quite promising.
@Marti,
I believe what Joyce was discussing was zoning related. The special permit avenue would still be an option. For those of us who live in close proximity to out of context McMansion, I can understand the desire.
An interesting read regarding “Smart Growth”. http://www.fodorandassociates.com/Reports/Myth_of_Smart_Growth.pdf
I found this paragraph ** very * familiar
“I supported. However, after years of observation, I have noted that there is a dark side to SG. Not only does this movement have a decidedly pro-growth focus and misleadingly portrays itself as the ultimate solution to growth problems, but it also seems to be hostile to citizens or community groups expressing legitimate concerns about continued growth. SG advocates often try to discredit and marginalize these viewpoints by casting them as extremist, radical, or illegitimate. This is in spite of the fact that such views are often mainstream, with surveys showing a majority of the public has concerns about too much growth. It is also in spite of ample evidence that most urban development has predominantly negative environmental and fiscal impacts.”
@Greg: I was hoping to learn more about some of the factual untruths that you have heard about the project, but thanks for the followup nonetheless.
Simon –
While there may be negatives to growth, there is indisputably a projected shortage of housing in MA. If we want to keep talented people from our world class colleges while also providing housing solutions our children and our parents can afford, we need to plan as a state to increase our housing stock.
In which ways and to what extent Newton is part of that increase is up to us.
This has been an interesting discussion that, as usual, has veered off in all sorts of directions. And I appreciate that four out of the five candidates have weighed in too.
But I wonder if folks have any thoughts about something I mentioned in my original post, which is Auchincloss’ use of a photo of himself in front of two MBTA cars but also the “danger” construction photo (above) on his campaign web site?
Does anyone else wonder is Auchincloss is trying to send two messages and perhaps appeal to two different constituencies here?
I think you’re looking for too much here Greg. Or was your intention to drive eyeballs to his website?
Gee whiz, a politician trying to please as many voters as possible. What a shock.
A picture in front of the Green line T: an everyman for Newton photo. Controversial? No.
The “construction” pic to illustrate his paragraph about being a planning expert who believes in a walkable village? Not exactly eye-candy but innocuous.
This thread has enough interesting stuff going on…
Greg, yes I agree with you. I’ve read some articles he’s written – one years ago on city lab – but really am having a hard time weeding through the “political speak” to find out what he truly supports. All I know for sure is he has good contacts, a lot of varying experiences and he and his campaign are preparing to win.
I took Susan’s advice and enjoyed the nice weather of this past weekend and witnessed the power of nature with Saturday’s evening storm.
On the earlier advice as to who we represent and the duties of and Alderman/woman. Emily explains it very well and I want to be very clear that as an Alderman it it my duty to represent the residents of this city.
Advice provided by others in this string is great reading, but residents will tell you that throughout this city over the past 1.5 years, I have been available and responsive to neighborhood concerns. As Aldermen we must of course look at the whole body of work, but in the end people purchased property in Newton for personal reasons and we must respect their rights.
What difference does it make if Jake is trying to communicate two different messages as long as they aren’t conflicting? The photos appropriately depict a young guy interested in local affairs.
I think they are potentially conflicting. The MBTA photo conveys a guy who supports transit oriented/smart growth while the “Danger Construction” image potentially conveys the opposite.
James, “As Aldermen we must of course look at the whole body of work, but in the end people purchased property in Newton for personal reasons and we must respect their rights.”
What does that mean? It says to me that City Councilors have to respect the rights of everyone in Newton.
Sounds great.
I hope that Alderman Cote is not saying that the many people that live in Newton that have not purchased property has less rights?
Jess, inaccurate statements about Austin Street are pretty easy to find; it just takes some time. Some are in the posts above. One was just posted by you, “… clear Newton … opposes Austin Street.”
I think candidates should thoroughly research an issue before determining they are against it and making that stance part of their platform.
I find it hard to believe that it is “clear” that Newton opposes Austin Street – the “project that’s on the table.” The public hearing is still (unbelievably) open, meaning emails and comments are still being accepted and until it’s closed there won’t be a working session. The project is still evolving. I have had a prompt and informative response from ASP to emails asking specific questions and pointing out specific problems submitted after reading the proposals, the minutes and reports from meetings, studying site layouts and floor plans and infrastructure needs. You and anyone else can still do this. It’s hard to know what “Newton” is clear about.
Have you looked into the large number of groups, with many individual members, who publicly support this development and why? Do you have specific reasons you are opposed to the development?
Mike and others, including me, don’t like the deal the mayor made with ASP, mainly because of the number of affordable units and income level required to purchase them, but also because the $250,000 wasn’t in writing. The facts are, though, that the lot was surplussed, the BOA agreed to either lease or sell it and have rezoned the lot MU4. (One of two MU zones Joyce left out of her post.) The mayor and ASP have agreed on a design that fits, with some exceptions, nicely within it. The rest of the details are evolving.
That is why it looks suspiciously like new candidates are anti development/density/growth/change when they are flatly against Austin Street and say everyone in Newton is against it.
Howard, we are talking about property rights, not personal rights.
@marti Exactly.
@Marti: In an attempt to facilitate honest conversation based on Greg’s assertion that several erroneous statements have been disseminated by opponents of Austin Street, your response is to take my quote out of context and turn it into an “inaccurate statement.” I am not attempting to debate opinion, but rather I am trying to learn about what those in favor of Austin Street perceive as factual untruths about the project. As you take my quote from above, you neglected to include in that quote that I said “the voice of residents in Ward Two specifically and Newton in general has been clear — oppose the current Austin Street project on the table.” Within that statement I do not present any untruths; the fact is that the vast majority of those I have spoken with do not support the current proposal.
In addition, you seem to be implying that I have either said, or that I believe, that the process has not been open to the public. This is far from the case, and in fact I appreciate the work that the Aldermen and others have done to hear public opinion, both through the open meetings and via email. At this point I agree that not much more could be done in this regard.
The question still stands, for anyone: what are the factual untruths — not opinions — that you have heard about the Austin Street project?
@Jess: Please carefully reread my original comment.
I wrote: “I’ve heard many erroneous statements about Austin Street.” I never said all of them were by opponents.
In fact in my response to you I wrote..
I hope you are more careful when listening to voters. (Oh, wait, I am a voter.)
@Alderman Norton: I’m willing to give weight to the feedback that comes from knocking on doors but online polls? I’d be the first to tell you they’re just a gimmick.
@Jess: Of the 10,000 doors you’re targeting, how many are outside Ward 2? And how many of those have you reached so far? I’m curious about all the opposition you’re hearing and where it’s coming from.
Jess, your quote was not taken out of context.
How is its “clear that Newton opposes Austin Street – the project that’s on the table” any different from “the voice of residents in Ward Two specifically and Newton in general has been clear — oppose the current Austin Street project on the table.”
All I did is shorten it. The message is exactly the same. It is clear (to you) that residents in Newton oppose it. That requires explanation because as I said above I don’t think you are correct in making that statement, particularly since the project isn’t complete so it’s not “on the table.”
As far as the factual untruths you are trying to learn about, since they are indeed factual and not opinion, it is appropriate for you do the research to see what the facts are and what the factual untruths are. Why on earth do you, a candidate wanting to be one of the very people who discover those facts, expect you are entitled to ask someone to do your work for you. Why would someone pour through all of the statements, V14 posts, petitions, Tab letters and articles, websites for and against, Facebook groups, meeting comments and minutes, etc. to find them for you?????? That is your job. This discussion has been going on for a long time (years).
Could we please find substitute wording for “factual untruths”? There’s gotta be a better way to say it. True lies??
Maybe not.
Well, because Jess isn’t the one alleging factual untruths by opponents of Austin St. Why should she pore through statements and blog posts looking for something she doesn’t believe exist, when the people alleging factual untruths could just cite examples.
Jess, never in any of my posts did I say or imply that you thought the process has not been open to the public. – it’s still open to the public.
I also did not say that not much more can be done.
Try reading again. I said that the process is ongoing and you and the people who are opposed should send in emails or comments about the parts you oppose to see if those problems could be worked out.
What specifically do you oppose? What have you heard the people you have talked to oppose? Or do you, and the others, just oppose development in general? Try answering some of the questions you have been asked instead of just making statements about vague opposition, expecting others to answer your questions and misreading comments.
Julia, Jess didn’t say she doesn’t believe the untruths don’t exist. She said it was to facilitate honest conversation. But maybe you know something I don’t. Maybe she is a member of the NVA.
Gail, how about just plain lies?
“The voice of residents in Ward Two specifically and Newton in general has been clear — oppose the current Austin Street project on the table.” Jess, this is your opinion or experience, but not a fact.
This is not the first time you’ve taken license with other people’s words. In another post, you paraphrased a conversation you had with Brook Lipsett without attribution or verification of any sort. That is just not an okay thing to do.
Jess: Let me take a shot at naming a few of them:
1) the multiple references to the fact that “everyone” or the “vast majority” of folks in Newton don’t want the project. In fact, I think it is split pretty evenly, with lots of folks wanting some development on the site, and lots of folks being concerned about parking. From my conversations with neighbors (and I actually live near the site) most folks seem far happier now that the parking is at 127, which was the number of usable spaces for the public prior to the work.
2) That this has somehow not been a “public process”. I’m now going to attend over 10 meetings on this in September. Hey, at some point a decision has to be made, and the mayor ended up picking one of the 5 who applied in the RFP process. But not public? Hardly. The Mayor might not agree with the opponents, but it has been public and clearly an effect has been made. I actually applaud the opponents, since I think they are the reason that we now have more parking and less commercial, and a lower height.
3) Parking. Ah, the misstatements on parking. How about the opponents of development calling out folks on their side to effectively stuff the parking ballot box by leaving their cars in the lot the days of the parking study. How about the various statements on use not based on reality (and reality is what I see 2 or 3 times a day, for the past 365 days). The lot is clearly busier than it was before since Shaws ended the free parking. But I rarely can’t find a spot after 2 minutes. And I park there almost daily, and multiple times on the weekend. Parking armageddon is not coming….
4) Business opposition. Lots of misstatements here. But some of these might be due to timing. Prior to the parking expansion, I asked many vendors what they felt. They were all worried about it. But now that the parking is increased, most businesses seem far more ok with it. A new survey would help determine that.
5) Generalizations: Easy to fall under this rhetorical device, but I’m a little tired of folks opposing Austin Street tell me why I moved to Newton. I moved to Newton because of location, because I wanted more house than Brookline at a lower price. And schools. And location. And a village feel. I’d LOVE a more active and alive village instead of a concrete ugly center street.
6) How about a concrete example? Well, let’s start with Peter Bruce, who know that the parking situation has changed for the better, decides to now say the Austin Street lot ACTUALLY has 159 spaces (conveniently leaving out the fact that those spaces are reserved for the high school and GoodWill) . I know that Peter Bruce knows how many spaces are actually useable. You know HOW I know? Because he was kind enough to reference the 127 space lot multiple times in HIS OWN EDITORIAL IN THE TAB on February 27, 2015. Look, if Peter and others want to object to the loss of the high school spaces or Goodwill, I completely understand. (I would argue that Goodwill was there because the lot was drastically underused, and that the high school students can walk a bit farther, and that high school parking is not the highest or best use for a center village lot). But hey, I’d understand if that was the argument. But it was an attempt to move the goal posts, and it stood out, even in a post filled with the typical generalizations that both sides seem to traffic in these days.
Look, I agree with others here that this is not the perfect project. The mayor could have and should have gotten more. More affordable housing. More village improvements. I’ve been disappointed with the process and the city’s role in it. But I’m trying not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I’m trying to think about what is best for the village not just in the next 12 months but the next 30 years. And I think 12 months of pain with construction is worth it for more residents living in the village, more commercial, more of a “village feel”, and ideally all of the improvements on Walnut that the city has promised. I would like this deal to be improved upon, and I’m counting on the Aldercritters to get more concessions. Perhaps I’m just idealistic.
But here is something born of experience in my own life. Newton is a hard place to do business and developer real estate. If this doesn’t move forward, the choice is very likely not a better project 5 years down the road. It will be the same parking lot for another 2 decades. For some that is ideal. For me, that is a missed opportunity to trade a bit of density for a real positive change for the village. And so I want to make the project better for my village and my city, rather than just kill it and hope for the best. And that’s the truth.
Point of clarification regarding truths and untruths about Austin Street. Marti accused me of spreading untruths when I challenged Greg’s assertion that no parking in the lot would be lost with the Austin Street Project. Had I not been working, and off the Internet during a 12-hour shift, I would have responded sooner. In fact there are 159 spaces in the lot. That’s what former Alderman Steve Linsky, GPI, Tom Kraus, and I have all agreed on. Take a trip to Newtonville and count them for yourself, if you don’t believe me. ASP admits it will have 127 spaces. That’s a net reduction of 32 spaces.
Complicating things a little was that during busy times on weekdays, 32 spaces were reserved for only a segment of the public, i.e., the Newton North Community. At busy times on regular school days, the vast majority of those spaces were filled. The lot could serve 159 vehicles in total, but only 127 not associated with NNHS. With the loss of those stalls, would-be parkers from the school will be forced into other parts of Newtonville’s often overcrowded parking system, and into residential streets, thus worsening our parking situation.
Also, the physical space consumed by those stalls would be removed as well, were the ASP to proceed. That space has been used for piling snow, and sometimes by police, U.S. Mail trucks, and other government vehicles. These factors will recur, and could reduce ASP’s maximum projection of 127 spaces to considerably less, especially in winter, the season in which we need the lot the most, and during which the City failed to do a parking study for two consecutive winters. (Twenty spaces in the lot were lost to snow for several weeks last winter).
Greg, do you still believe the developers’ and Marti’s PR message that there would be no reduction of parking space in the lot were the ASP to proceed?
Point of clarification regarding truths and untruths about Austin Street. Marti accused me of spreading untruths when I challenged Greg’s assertion that no parking in the lot would be lost with the Austin Street Project. Had I not been working, and off the Internet during a 12-hour shift, I would have responded sooner. In fact there are 159 spaces in the lot. That’s what former Alderman Steve Linsky, GPI, Tom Kraus, and I have all agreed on. Take a trip to Newtonville and count them for yourself, if you don’t believe me. ASP admits it will have 127 spaces. That’s a net reduction of 32 spaces.
Complicating things a little was that during busy times on weekdays, 32 spaces were reserved for only a segment of the public, i.e., the Newton North Community. At busy times on regular school days, the vast majority of those spaces were filled. The lot could serve 159 vehicles in total, but only 127 not associated with NNHS. With the loss of those stalls, would-be parkers from the school will be forced into other parts of Newtonville’s often overcrowded parking system, and into residential streets, thus worsening our parking situation.
Also, the physical space consumed by those stalls would be removed as well, were the ASP to proceed. That space has been used for piling snow, and sometimes by police, U.S. Mail trucks, and other government vehicles. These factors will recur, and could reduce ASP’s maximum projection of 127 spaces to considerably less, especially in winter, the season in which we need the lot the most, and during which the City failed to do a parking study for two consecutive winters. (Twenty spaces in the lot were lost to snow for several weeks last winter).
Greg, do you still believe the developers’ and Marti’s PR message that there would be no reduction of parking space in the lot were the ASP to proceed?
@Peter Bruce: Clearly you feel that what you had to say was so important that you said it twice. 🙂
But fignewtonville just saved me ten minutes responding to you and was far more articulate than I could have been. Thanks Fig!
To those who have knocked on doors in Newtonville, the assertion that most residents there oppose the current iteration of the Austin St project is not controversial, it’s patently obvious. I can’t speak to doors outside Newtonville, but some of the current candidates can, and arguably with more authority than any V14 bloggers, who I would venture to say have not been spending their free time this way.
The Newtonville Area Council did a survey of residents and businesses and found that most people favored something 3 stories or less, 40 units or less.
Obviously one is entitled to one’s opinion about the project regardless of the popular will toward it, but to scoff at perceptions by any of the Ward 2 candidates who have been knocking on doors throughout our fair city? Well I don’t understand on what basis one would do that.
@Fig,
Its great that you are discussing the issues with the business owners – hopefully not in a professional sense 😉
I was intrigued with point 4
“4) Business opposition. Lots of misstatements here. But some of these might be due to timing. Prior to the parking expansion, I asked many vendors what they felt. They were all worried about it. But now that the parking is increased, most businesses seem far more ok with it. A new survey would help determine that.”
I am surprised as from what I understand, the parking lot is not going to be accessible for over a year. I thought most businesses were concerned that they will not be able to survive without the lot?l
No one is scoffing, Emily. Various candidates made broad assertions about what “everyone” thinks based on their experiences canvassing. I’ve done a lot of canvassing in my day and know you don’t come to any conclusions based on those conversations.
@Jane: Why would you not come to any conclusions based on conversations with Newton voters? Especially if you’re, say running for office? 🙂
Emily – Because the canvassers mission is to convince the people his/her opinion is right – in Jess’s case and yours, that this particular project is bad.
Also, let’s not forget all the “scientific” polling in 2012 that declared Mitt Romney the winner the week before the election, possibly in a landslide.
Emily:
With all due respect, I think you are very much associated with the anti-Austin Street crowd, and you might just be getting the answers you expect to get. Look, I’m not a politician or a candidate for office. And if you asked me during a door knock, you would have heard me complain about the mayor, the site, the issues I’ve mentioned above. I would have asked you to fight for more affordable housing, less height, and more parking. And I’d probably stop there, and not risk an argument with a neighbor. But if you had asked me point blank if I would rather have the parking lot for the next decade than the project proposed, I would have answered the project. As would almost all of my neighbors (and my neighbors and I have been talking about this for few years, so they’ve never been shy about risking an argument with me… 😉 )
The change in parking made all the difference in my conversations. It really did. The opponents built their entire argument around the parking, height, and density, but the very vocal opponents at the meetings were the folks opposed due to parking. Once you mention that has changed, it does make a difference. As for scoffing, well, that seems kinda harsh for my very long post. If I was going to scoff, I would have saved it for the folks who dog-whistle the word “urban” whenever affordable housing is mentioned. I scoff at those folks.
Simon, you are completely correct. Business owners I’ve talked to mentioned that as a huge concern. Easy for me to gloss over it, not so easy for them. I’m assuming that as in most other jurisdictions, we can figure out how to deal with parking loss for a 1 year period. It won’t be easy, and the developer will need to help. But again that is a long term vs short term question.
@Fig: When I began knocking on doors 2 years ago I did a lot of listening, as I was genuinely interested to see what people were looking for in their next alderperson. And I heard a lot of concerns and negative views about the project. Not from everyone, but clearly from the majority. It’s what I encountered. It is what it is.
Interesting to me that people seem so threatened by the suggestion that a majority of people may not want high density projects in Newton. If you believe in something, why not try to make your case for it, and bring people to your point of view, rather than attack those who may not agree? For example I have no idea if most people in Newton favor easing restrictions on accessory apartments, nor if most people in Newton favor allowing overnight street parking all year long, even when there is no snow on the ground. I favor both of those, polls be damned! And am happy to make the case for them to anyone who will listen (and expect to be doing just that in the coming months).
@Jane–I didn’t knock on people’s doors and tell them “here is what I think about Austin Street.” As I said above, my approach when encountering a voter at home was to LISTEN.
Frankly at that point I, and many others, assumed it was a done deal. The more people I spoke with, the more surprised I was that a project with so much opposition had gotten so far along.
@Greg — You are right online polls are a gimmick, but at least in terms of reading the V14 tea leaves regarding aldermanic candidates, they are a fun gimmick!
Very well could be, Emily. But some you approached tell about the exchange through a different lens.
Emily – Now you have the people with whom you disagree scoffing and attacking because they feel threatened. These scoffing, attacking people are your constituents as well.
I’ve never canvassed anywhere for any candidate, going back to Eugene McCarthy where I didn’t hear a laundry list of complaints. It’s just part of the process.
@Bryan,
I did my own tea leaves reading regarding Austin Street.
They concluded it would be “Folly” to introduce a large complex with a few affordable houses in the namesake of smart growth, and diversity.
The tea leaves said that it would make a Newtonville a hip place to live with a great night life and reasonable transportation to access to Boston. They said it would increase the value of properties in the neighborhood, and rental values alike.
They said that the unintended consequence would be that lower to middle class “affordable” houses in the area would sky rocket and diversity would further decline.
Can we all agree that no one knows what the majority or minority of people are thinking in Newton. If you go canvassing, 80% of the people aren’t home. If you put this question on the ballot, 80% of the people won’t vote. Lets say the majority of people you talk to have said….
Greg said:”I think they are potentially conflicting. The MBTA photo conveys a guy who supports transit oriented/smart growth while the “Danger Construction” image potentially conveys the opposite.
I took the “Danger Construction” image as someone who cares for people’s safety.
Doubtful we can all agree. But I agree.
I agree.
I agree.
Answers to surveys and comments to candidates canvassing depend entirely on how the topic is broached.
Anyone knocking on doors, that people open, has to start the conversation and either ask or bring up issues. If you’re asking about Austin Street, or any other issue, the answers depend on the question.
“Do you support the development of Austin Street or do you want to beautify the parking lot with trees and benches?”
“Do you want to loose parking places?”
“Do you support the proposal?”
“Do you see any specific problems with the proposal?”
I would have different answers to all of these questions. No broad assumptions can be made with the answers and most answers have a lot to do with confirmation bias in the questions
I know plenty of people in Newtonville who haven’t given this development a passing glance. Most of the others have some complaint about it. Neither of these things lead to a conclusion other than residents have different opinions.
.
So the main lie (factual untruth) about the Austin Street proposal is that Newton residents have reached a clear consensus of opposition.
Marti,
In my day when I went door to door I never opened up and suggested issues, I would ask the homeowner if he/she has any issues or anything bothering them in Newton. If they didn’t have anything bad to say, I was pretty sure he/she was going to vote for the status quo. Afterall, why would he/she vote for a challenger if he/she had no problems. Sometimes they would ask me what my view were on a particular issue, then I’d engage.
@Jane: To Clarify what you recently said and to follow-up on a previous thread, I have not, nor do I plan to, post any identifying information from a private resident without his or her consent. Brooke Lipsett is a public figure, having previously been the president of the Board of Aldermen and currently sitting as the chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Consequently, I do not believe that providing a “paraphrasing” of our encounter is in any way inappropriate. There were many witnesses to the conversation and had the substance of the conversation not been so alarming to me, I would have seen no reason to have posted it. Furthermore, to suggest that I — and the other candidates — should not articulate our experiences nor what we have learned by going door-to-door makes no sense. As Alderman Norton has reaffirmed, the fact is that when going door-to-door, the vast majority have told me that they oppose the Austin Street proposal. I encourage other candidates to chime in on this, as it very well is possible that they have had different experiences than Alderman Norton’s and my own.
@Alderman Norton: Per usual, Alderman Norton is on point, so thank you for providing your perspective and further context. For what it’s worth, I have been impressed that Ward Two residents overwhelmingly support and think highly of Alderman Norton.
@Marti: If you or any others are truly concerned that I am misleading voters in any way, then I encourage you or anyone else interested to join me on the campaign trail to see first hand the interactions that I have. I am about to head out canvassing for a few hours, so if you would like to join, please send me an email!
Today, I have counted 151 parking spaces in the Austin St lot, plus two reserved for Goodwill workers plus a few where the Goodwill truck is. So the accurate figure is over 155 and may well be 159. In any case, it is a lot more than 127. So Marti, please check your facts. As an officer of the NVA, I could not let your remark about our website go unchallenged and even though I am sick, I walked the parking lot and counted spaces: at 1 PM, did I wish for trees and their shade!!
How many of those 159 spaces were empty?
121 spaces are for public use.
Who has time to count parking spaces in a parking lot? Have we really come to this?
Thanks for the kind words Jess.
Do not take my word for it, or Jess’s. Anyone who is seriously interested in hearing for yourself Newtonville residents’ views on the proposed project, just stand outside the Newtonville Shaw’s and ask.
I don’t know what being a public figure has to do with the appropriateness of paraphrasing a part of conversation you had with Ms. Lipsett. Either you quote with attribution or you leave the information out.
It doesn’t matter who it is. “Paraphrasing” something (you say) you heard is your subjective interpretation, i.e. gossip and should not be taken seriously. Repeating your unsubstantiated claim about all of the witnesses is immature. Move on or provide documentation.
@Jane and others, without taking a side on Austin St, I think it is important to know what is going on. It seems this thread has two (or so) facts regarding the parking, one of the main issues that many have with this project. I think we should applaud isabelle for trying to clear things up. Granted the argument about if we would have more (available to the public) or fewer (actual spots in the lot) with the proposed project will rage one.
The Highland Area Council has also been counting parking spaces to know what is available at different times. An interesting result, to me, is we found that in a half mile radius of the village center we had over 30 different parking regulations, literally changing block to block.
It’s all in how you ask the question.
Option 1:
“The city is looking to create large scale housing opportunities to help more people take part in the wonderful quality of life in Newton. Do you support this effort?”
Option 2:
“The city is looking to create large scale housing opportunities to help more people take part in the wonderful quality of life in Newton. However, the schools will be even more overcrowded, only a tiny portion of the housing is “affordable”, the traffic will be worse, the city will become more urban, and the residents of the village don’t want it and feel their wishes were completely ignored. Do you support this effort?”
Hmmm. that’s a tough one.
Groot – These spots have been counted countless times. One more counting isn’t going to change things.
I have been asked several times by candidates and have always said I am against the project. I just feel like every bit of open space and parking is being taken away. Count me as one of the people who bought a home in Newton many years ago because I liked it the way it was, not because I thought in the future it might be a high density place. I am not anti development, I think the development on rt 9 came out nicely and rt 9 is better – but I am against developing every little bit of space. And I think it is important to have parking.
Lassy:
“Every bit of open space and parking is being taken away”. Not sure what you mean by this. The loss of one parking lot for 12 months does not a crisis in Newonville make…. And the lot is not my version of open space, I’d define that a bit differently.
Charlie:
How about a 3rd description:
“The city is looking to create large scale housing opportunities to help more people take part in the wonderful quality of life in Newton. 20% of the project will be classified as affordable, parking will be limited for the construction but then returned to 127 spaces (same public spaces as before). Polls have shown that a majority of the community wants some form of development, but that a majority also feels the project as contemplated is too large. The Village will also see $1,000,000 of improvements due to the development of the the project.”
Look, when I’ve talked to the current Aldercritters, I’ve always appreciated those that can weigh the positives and the negatives and especially those that want to make Newton better. Fundamentally, my take is that the parking lot, as is, is a lost opportunity to make Newton better, and make Newtonville better. There are trade-offs. There are ALWAYS trade-offs.
But the question I’d throw out there, especially to Emily, is this: Are you making Newton better by maintaining the status quo? Is your hope for the future the parking lot as is? Is that the best we can do?
Because the reality is that it took us 8 years to get here. I’d invite folks who actually like some sort of development at this site to speak up, email the aldercritters, and work to MAKE THE CURRENT PROPOSAL BETTER. I’m trying to do that. Because I think we can do better than a parking lot.